3 ms·

What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though? Or does a different standard apply to certain claims, like cultural axioms?

me_me_me 3y ago
No, no, no. I don't have to prove your claim to be wrong. YOU have to prove your claim to be right. You are making extraordinary claims that is at odd with everyday observable lives we live in. If you claims someone was walking on water, its not my job to prove you wrong!
- mistermann 3y ago
  I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof, are certain claims off limits to challenge for some reason, and can that reason be shared publicly?
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    > I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" Me: "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" > I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof The OP made no claims. An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Just so we're all on the same page, I am not the person who made the first comment ("Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 > Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. > You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" If we're being "pedantic", there are ~~two~~ THREE claims that "have" a burden of proof: 1. Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. [Was this actually the original assertion?] I don't believe this assertion occurred - rather, I think you may have misinterpreted "are in the same ballpark"? 2. belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity Ontologically + algorithmically, "is not different" is a bold claim. As an ~analogy, see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-strategy-for-equals-and-gethashcode https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-s... 3. "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" a) One can actually, but not in an epistemically & logically sound manner (and you have a few challenges of your own on that front). b) "meaningful" is a very tricky word; it is also a subjective word (so, conducting logic upon it is going to produce strange, misleading results like "its not", which is an opinion that has the appearance of being a fact. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, here we do not disagree (you do believe it to be true, no)?) >> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof > The OP made no claims. Again, if we are referring to "Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross...", I believe you are incorrect, there are several claims in there ("pedentically", even an expression of one's opinion and predictions are claims). > An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief. While technically true, this seems like one of those "not wrong" truths: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20not%20wrong https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20n... >>> "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance.... In this case, substantial problems derive from the multiple differing meanings of "is a", which is often mixed up with equals at runtime (under certain conditions). But also, importantly (maybe even more importantly): this cultural norm where on certain topics of conversation, it is acceptable to simply play the ~"it's just an opinion, everyone is always only expressing their opinion..." as a sort of rhetorical get our of jail free card is (imho) not only annoying, but a giant source of unrealized (recursively compounding, etc) harm in the system. I often wonder what would happen is some set of people in this system were to "do otherwise" (in a comprehensive manner), at substantial scale. tl;dr: probably just an honest mistake, cheers!
vidarh 3y ago
You're misinterpreting what I wrote, so let's break it down. 1. If our hypothetical Simulationist believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite the hypothetical Simulationist having seen no evidence, then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief. 2. If they expect me to consider their belief as anything but a religious belief, then it rests on them to present the evidence they have seen. They're free not to, and I'm free to dismiss their unsupported hypothesis. It's not my job to search for evidence for a claim made by someone else if I don't find it compelling. "No evidence" did not suggest no evidence can and/or does exist somewhere, someplace, but that I have not seen any. My assertion that I have not seen any is all the evidence that is needed for the claim that I have not seen any. But like Russel's Teapot, if someone claims to know that we are in a simulation, that is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof lies squarely on them.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > You're misinterpreting what I wrote Seems more like I interpreted what you wrote literally rather than ideologically (colloquially, as is current enforced fashion)...seems a bit unfair that religious people can't pull a similar trick and say scripture is metaphorical and nullify all criticism. Ok, so let's consider "then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief": For clarity: do you believe that it is necessarily true that there is no evidence for a God? Is there some important meaning contained in "just holding another religious belief"? It seems like a phrase that is conclusive about something in some way (the "just" accentuating it, at least to my interpretation). Does personal witness count as evidence for people who believe themselves to have witnessed evidence, and if not why not (I'm getting at what seems like at least somewhat of a double standard, and there's the thorny issue of difficulty of proof of existence vs disproof in play[1]...among other things, some in your favor, and some a derivative of temporal cultural norms of cognition). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event

me_me_me 3y ago

No, no, no. I don't have to prove your claim to be wrong. YOU have to prove your claim to be right. You are making extraordinary claims that is at odd with everyday observable lives we live in. If you claims someone was walking on water, its not my job to prove you wrong!

mistermann 3y ago
I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof, are certain claims off limits to challenge for some reason, and can that reason be shared publicly?
- me_me_me 3y ago
  > I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" Me: "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" > I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof The OP made no claims. An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Just so we're all on the same page, I am not the person who made the first comment ("Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 > Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. > You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" If we're being "pedantic", there are ~~two~~ THREE claims that "have" a burden of proof: 1. Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. [Was this actually the original assertion?] I don't believe this assertion occurred - rather, I think you may have misinterpreted "are in the same ballpark"? 2. belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity Ontologically + algorithmically, "is not different" is a bold claim. As an ~analogy, see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-strategy-for-equals-and-gethashcode https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-s... 3. "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" a) One can actually, but not in an epistemically & logically sound manner (and you have a few challenges of your own on that front). b) "meaningful" is a very tricky word; it is also a subjective word (so, conducting logic upon it is going to produce strange, misleading results like "its not", which is an opinion that has the appearance of being a fact. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, here we do not disagree (you do believe it to be true, no)?) >> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof > The OP made no claims. Again, if we are referring to "Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross...", I believe you are incorrect, there are several claims in there ("pedentically", even an expression of one's opinion and predictions are claims). > An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief. While technically true, this seems like one of those "not wrong" truths: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20not%20wrong https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20n... >>> "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance.... In this case, substantial problems derive from the multiple differing meanings of "is a", which is often mixed up with equals at runtime (under certain conditions). But also, importantly (maybe even more importantly): this cultural norm where on certain topics of conversation, it is acceptable to simply play the ~"it's just an opinion, everyone is always only expressing their opinion..." as a sort of rhetorical get our of jail free card is (imho) not only annoying, but a giant source of unrealized (recursively compounding, etc) harm in the system. I often wonder what would happen is some set of people in this system were to "do otherwise" (in a comprehensive manner), at substantial scale. tl;dr: probably just an honest mistake, cheers!

vidarh 3y ago

You're misinterpreting what I wrote, so let's break it down. 1. If our hypothetical Simulationist believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite the hypothetical Simulationist having seen no evidence, then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief. 2. If they expect me to consider their belief as anything but a religious belief, then it rests on them to present the evidence they have seen. They're free not to, and I'm free to dismiss their unsupported hypothesis. It's not my job to search for evidence for a claim made by someone else if I don't find it compelling. "No evidence" did not suggest no evidence can and/or does exist somewhere, someplace, but that I have not seen any. My assertion that I have not seen any is all the evidence that is needed for the claim that I have not seen any. But like Russel's Teapot, if someone claims to know that we are in a simulation, that is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof lies squarely on them.

mistermann 3y ago
> You're misinterpreting what I wrote Seems more like I interpreted what you wrote literally rather than ideologically (colloquially, as is current enforced fashion)...seems a bit unfair that religious people can't pull a similar trick and say scripture is metaphorical and nullify all criticism. Ok, so let's consider "then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief": For clarity: do you believe that it is necessarily true that there is no evidence for a God? Is there some important meaning contained in "just holding another religious belief"? It seems like a phrase that is conclusive about something in some way (the "just" accentuating it, at least to my interpretation). Does personal witness count as evidence for people who believe themselves to have witnessed evidence, and if not why not (I'm getting at what seems like at least somewhat of a double standard, and there's the thorny issue of difficulty of proof of existence vs disproof in play[1]...among other things, some in your favor, and some a derivative of temporal cultural norms of cognition). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event